Talk:ᠪᡳᡨᡥᡝᠰᡳ

Middle Mongolian vs Classical Mongolian
Hi, I was wondering why you put Middle Mongolian instead of Classical Mongolian as the donor language. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @RcAlex36, thanks for bringing this up. The Manchu word bithesi was introduced to replace the word bakshi in 1631, which was borrowed from Mongolian (ref: 清實錄 太宗文皇帝實錄: “辛未 (1631)... 文臣稱巴克什者，俱停止，稱為筆帖式...”). According to the book Manwen Laodang (滿文老檔), the word baksi appeared in Manchu not later than 1615. So the problem here is how to determine the approximate “start date” of Classical Mongolian. From the book “Introduction to Classical (literary) Mongolian” by Grøbech Kaare, Classical Mongolian was introduced by translators of Kanjur under Ligden Haan (reign: 1604-1634). That’s basically the same era when “baksi” appeared in Manchu documents. However, the Mongolian word багш (bagsh) is also a borrowed one (from Chinese 博士). Here, 博 apparently has a final -k sound. But as we know, the rime book Zhongyuan Yinyun (中原音韻, circa 1324) already shows signs of the disappearance of final stops in Mandarin. Therefore, the Mongolian word bagsh probably has been around earlier than this time (if it’s borrowed from Mandarin). In this case, the word багш would definitely be Middle Mongolian, if not Ancient Mongolian.

Anyway, these are not solid proofs that Middle Mongolian is the donor language of bithesi. Maybe an in-depth investigation of the ethymology is needed, but before that I would say Middle Mongolian is a likely donor to this word. Again, thanks for bringing this topic up! Bula Hailan (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)